UDRS under spotlight

[Neel Here]

which of this series had hotspot and snicko ? only the ones in australia.
who paid for it ? CA ? or the broadcaster ? get your facts right.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Neel Here
which of this series had hotspot and snicko ? only the ones in australia.
who paid for it ? CA ? or the broadcaster ? get your facts right.

Hotspots are irrelevant. Only the Indian players like it. The REAL difference UDRS makes is by using the Hawk Eye -- which is available in all of the countries I mentioned. And yes the host broadcasters pay for it. Why can't Nimbus pay for Hawk Eye when it can pay $600 million for the TV rights? The only explanation I can think of is BCCI is not interested in using the UDRS. Because if they do, then they can no longer create pressure on umpires to give decisions in their favour. Had UDRS been used in the SA-Ind series, India wouldn't have won the Durban test match where THREE crucial decisions went against SA.

[Neel Here]

'your' only explanation is just that. it has no connection to reality. India is one of the countries that has suffered the most due to poor umpiring and biased match referee decisions. your charges are not only utterly false but laughable as well.

why nimbus doesn't pay for it you should talk to their CEO and shareholders. it is patently unfair for ICC to expect broadcasters to pay for these tech. ICC gets its own hefty payment for tournaments like the world cup from broadcasters like nimbus, why should they pay for the tech as well ?

it's only you who is making asinine comments 'hawk eye is the real UDRS'. every cricketer from dhoni to mahela jawabardhane (do you know who that is ? do you at all know what cricket is and who plays it?) has said that they prefer the whole UDRS package.
but then, you are not a cricketer. you will say anything and make up even odder theories if it allows you to cuss against BCCI.

Had UDRS been used in the SA-Ind series, India wouldn't have won the Durban test match where THREE crucial decisions went against SA.

perhaps you haven't watched the full match. 2-3 decisions went against India as well.
India would have won a series in australia if not for bad umpiring.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Neel Here
'your' only explanation is just that. it has no connection to realiy.

why nimbus doesn't pay for it you should talk to their CEO and shareholders. it is patently unfair for ICC to expect broadcasters to pay for these tech. ICC gets its own hefty payment for tournaments like the world cup from broadcasters like nimbus, why should they pay for the tech as well ?

it's only you who is making laughable comments 'hawk eye is the real UDRS'. every cricketer from dhoni to mahela jawabardhane (do you know who that is ? do you at all know what cricket is and who plays it?) has said that they prefer the whole UDRS package.

If the "whole package" is available then it's fine, but if it is not then they should at least use Hawk Eye because it gives correct LBW decisions. And everyone knows LBW decisions are the most controversial. If Hawk Eye was used then during the Durban test Zaheer Khan would have been out LBW, and there would have been no big partnership with Laxman, and de Villiers and Boucher wouldn't have been given out in the second innings, and there would have been no Indian victory at Durban. Also in the Mohali test against Australia, with just 5 runs to win and 1 wicket remaining Pragyan Ojha was clearly LBW, but was given not out. Hawk Eye would have changed all that.

The only cricketers I know of who oppose the use of Hawk Eye are Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni, Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid. Here's a trivia: what's common between them?

And no, I don't know any cricketer called "jawabardhane".

PS: Although the Indian media and players would like the whole world to believe that they were hard done by umpiring decisions in Australia in 2007-08, the reality is different. While India received some poor decisions in the Sydney test, that was more than made up for by decisions that went against Australia in the next test in Perth which eventually led to India's victory. But the Indian media made no fuss about that.

[Neel Here]

has anyone ever told you that you have an overactive imagination ?

[Jonas]

Well most of the non-Indian cricket fans are imaginative then. Because these issues have been raised by a lot of people.

[senman]

Originally Posted by Jonas
If the "whole package" is available then it's fine, but if it is not then they should at least use Hawk Eye because it gives correct LBW decisions. And everyone knows LBW decisions are the most controversial. If Hawk Eye was used then during the Durban test Zaheer Khan would have been out LBW, and there would have been no big partnership with Laxman, and de Villiers and Boucher wouldn't have been given out in the second innings, and there would have been no Indian victory at Durban. Also in the Mohali test against Australia, with just 5 runs to win and 1 wicket remaining Pragyan Ojha was clearly LBW, but was given not out. Hawk Eye would have changed all that.

The only cricketers I know of who oppose the use of Hawk Eye are Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni, Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid. Here's a trivia: what's common between them?

And no, I don't know any cricketer called "jawabardhane".

PS: Although the Indian media and players would like the whole world to believe that they were hard done by umpiring decisions in Australia in 2007-08, the reality is different. While India received some poor decisions in the Sydney test, that was more than made up for by decisions that went against Australia in the next test in Perth which eventually led to India's victory. But the Indian media made no fuss about that.

What a load of BS.

So according to you if India receives some positive decision its because it is controlling umpire or pressuring them and if it receives negative decision its because of human error.

DRS is being used in this world cup, what more you want? Hawk-eye ? why don't the money rich, righteous , first world country like England (ECB) bankroll the whole Hawk-eye or any other superior technology?

The only cricketers I know of who oppose the use of Hawk Eye are Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni, Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid. Here's a trivia: what's common between them?
hey atleast we don't import any from other countries, tell me how many english born are playing in your team?

I am with UDRS but your generalization and attempt to portray our victories in bad light reeks of famous pom-whinging

[Dilscoop]

Originally Posted by Neel_here
dilu, if you bothered to read my post (in stead of playing "I'll throw all my hate at this Indian while I keep my brain in the freezer") you might have noticed that

Ok, I can't bother with this any longer, when you are not going to read my posts, and keep on saying the same thing over and over again. It's excatly like talking to the wall. But I will ask you this, show me where excatly was I bashing Indian or Indians or even Indian team in any way? Quote me. As a matter of fact, when did you ever hear me say anything badly about anything related to India?

I get it, you are here on a mission to defend your country. But it's one thing to defend your country when people are saying bad things about it, than a whole other thing to drag someone into it, and accuse them of something that they are not doing. Seriously getting tired of your late bust of insecurity. Idk if you are trying to gain annoy-o-meter points on Z's thread, but w/e it is, it's working. And I am not going to deal with this BS.
talk to the > . Cyaa...

And on topic goes, BCCI won't use it until they figure out a way to make money out of it.

[Dilscoop]

Originally Posted by Jonas
Well most of the non-Indian cricket fans are imaginative then. Because these issues have been raised by a lot of people.

Don't like his attitude of "everyone else is wrong, and I am right". He should seriously consider looking around the web and see how BCCI are the only ones who have problem against it. Instead of trying to convince w/e that he is trying to convince us.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by senman
What a load of BS.

So according to you if India receives some positive decision its because it is controlling umpire or pressuring them and if it receives negative decision its because of human error.

I am with UDRS but your generalization and attempt to portray our victories in bad light reeks of famous pom-whinging

There is absolutely no doubt that bigger nations receive more of the 50/50 decisions most of the time. While I can't "prove" how much favor India receives, the fact that BCCI is dead against using the UDRS -- even in away tours -- makes me think that way.

And I haven't said all of India's victories were because of umpiring mistakes. I mentioned Durban, Mohali and Perth test matches where India benefited hugely because of umpiring decisions. Just like all Indian supporters believe they would have won the Sydney test had there not been umpiring mistakes.

DRS is being used in this world cup, what more you want? Hawk-eye ? why don't the money rich, righteous , first world country like England (ECB) bankroll the whole Hawk-eye or any other superior technology?

I'm very glad that UDRS is being used in the World Cup -- and we have already seen how useful Hawkeye is in making LBW decisions. But I wanted to see the UDRS being used in the important test series between SA and India. They had all the technologies available, but couldn't use it because of BCCI's objection. I hear the same thing will happen in the all important test series between England and India this summer. BCCI has once again opposed using the technology.

ECB and Sky Sports have always used the Hawk-eye to cover home England matches. They have always supported the usage of Hawkeye. But why would they bear the expenses in other countries? ECB is the most innovative and forward thinking cricket board in the world. They invented the 50-over game and also Twenty20 cricket. Hawkeye was also invented by an Englishman. England have always contributed to take the game forward, unlike BCCI which wants to hold it back.

hey atleast we don't import any from other countries, tell me how many english born are playing in your team?

All of the players in the English team have some English background. Kevin Pietersen's mother is English, Jonathan Trott's father is English, Andrew Strauss's father is English and moved to England at 6, Matt Prior's father is English and moved to England at 10.

But most importantly ALL of these players developed their game in English county cricket. And ECB didn't import them -- it was THEIR decision that they would play for England.

Britain has a multicultural society with people from all kinds of backgrounds. English people are open-minded, and many of them travel to various parts of the world and marry foreigners. So, the diversity is always going to be there. That's unlike the closed-minded Indians who can't embrace foreign cultures and foreign people.

[amar11432]

lol, what a deviation from the topic.

[Ajfar]

Originally Posted by senman
hey atleast we don't import any from other countries, tell me how many english born are playing in your team?

why are you bring that up? How is that relevant to the UDRS/umpiring topic that's being discussed here.

So in order to have UDRS the host country has to bear the expense for it? is that how it works?

[_Rafi_]

I thought the thread is about meaningfulness of UDRS. Now the thread turned out something else. I am sensing the heat of upcoming India vs England match.

[senman]

Originally Posted by Jonas
There is absolutely no doubt that bigger nations receive more of the 50/50 decisions most of the time. While I can't "prove" how much favor India receives, the fact that BCCI is dead against using the UDRS -- even in away tours -- makes me think that way.

And I haven't said all of India's victories were because of umpiring mistakes. I mentioned Durban, Mohali and Perth test matches where India benefited hugely because of umpiring decisions. Just like all Indian supporters believe they would have won the Sydney test had there not been umpiring mistakes.

BCCI is against UDRS is a fact but what is stopping the others implementing it?

Originally Posted by Jonas
I'm very glad that UDRS is being used in the World Cup -- and we have already seen how useful Hawkeye is in making LBW decisions. But I wanted to see the UDRS being used in the important test series between SA and India. They had all the technologies available, but couldn't use it because of BCCI's objection. I hear the same thing will happen in the all important test series between England and India this summer. BCCI has once again opposed using the technology.

Bi-lateral series usage of UDRS is a decision between two countries, which should be decided by the host country, if the host country wants it they have to force the issue.

Originally Posted by Jonas
ECB and Sky Sports have always used the Hawk-eye to cover home England matches. They have always supported the usage of Hawkeye. But why would they bear the expenses in other countries? ECB is the most innovative and forward thinking cricket board in the world. They invented the 50-over game and also Twenty20 cricket. Hawkeye was also invented by an Englishman. England have always contributed to take the game forward, unlike BCCI which wants to hold it back.

So who is responsible to implement Hawk-eye in World Cup? Is the world cup managed by BCCI or ICC?

Originally Posted by Jonas
All of the players in the English team have some English background. Kevin Pietersen's mother is English, Jonathan Trott's father is English, Andrew Strauss's father is English and moved to England at 6, Matt Prior's father is English and moved to England at 10.

But most importantly ALL of these players developed their game in English county cricket. And ECB didn't import them -- it was THEIR decision that they would play for England.

Exactly whats right for you seems to be wrong in others eye, you would say that the players choose to play for England, I will say they are mercenaries switched their identity to earn extra bucks.
That doesn't mean what you think is wrong same way BCCI or other Indian players having different perspective means they are wrong.

Originally Posted by Jonas
Britain has a multicultural society with people from all kinds of backgrounds. English people are open-minded, and many of them travel to various parts of the world and marry foreigners. So, the diversity is always going to be there. That's unlike the closed-minded Indians who can't embrace foreign cultures and foreign people.

Here comes the reason why I responded to your post the way I did, get your facts right before indirectly spewing India is not multicultural, not open -minded, not diverse or doesn't embrace other cultures. This is load of BS..................................

[senman]

Originally Posted by bangladesh_sy
why are you bring that up? How is that relevant to the UDRS/umpiring topic that's being discussed here.

I explained it in my above post.

Originally Posted by bangladesh_sy
So in order to have UDRS the host country has to bear the expense for it? is that how it works?

Normally Host country have to bear the expense but if it is a world-cup event its the responsibility of ICC(which has lot of cricket playing nations not just BCCI)

I support UDRS. I am very against BCCI but if you see his posts its accusing BCCI for everything while taking away the blame from other powerful boards such as ECB.

Also he explains how Cricket, Hawk-eye was invented by English (but have no responsibility in sponsoring those things around the world), which is true but does it have any relevance to this thread? it shows his attitude which I am happy to put down.

[senman]

Originally Posted by _Rafi_
I thought the thread is about meaningfulness of UDRS. Now the thread turned out something else. I am sensing the heat of upcoming India vs England match.

What to do Rafi,

this happens

Who r u supporting?

[_Rafi_]

Originally Posted by senman
What to do Rafi,

this happens

Who r u supporting?

My support depends on my fantasy team in cricinfo. I have two Indian players in my team, I have to support India for my own sake. Sachin to score 150 for me:-)

[senman]

Originally Posted by _Rafi_
My support depends on my fantasy team in cricinfo. I have two Indian players in my team, I have to support India for my own sake. Sachin to score 150 for me:-)

If its England you should have Yuvraj

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by senman
Who r u supporting?

India for that match.

On topic - there is a LOT you can do without hotspot and ultra slow motion cameras when it comes to UDRS. It's not totally meaningless. Of course, you can consider it meaningless if you don't know how to use it - we get it.

Over the years, the BD team has had so many obvious umpiring errors (read: BLUNDERS) that it's not fun anymore. Thick inside edge leading to the pads were given out (Nafees against India or Australia I believe). At the very least, UDRS helps in minimizing those errors. You don't need hot spot cameras to prove those. For things you can't determine with a camera, those can be considered as errors with the equipments. At the very least it levels the playground for us. If India can't use it, not our problem. We can't use it either - but it gives us some ammo against the idiots like Moni and Tucker.

[Neel Here]

kabir bhai, we only remember poor umpiring decisions against out own teams. I can recite an even worse list that you have. sachin was after all given LBW in australia after being hit on the helmet !!

it's not about whether Indian players can use UDRS well although circinfo has tried its best to portray that as the issue with wanton speculation and subtle hints (I've not seen one article on UDRS from cricinfo that doesn't add "India failed to get one referral in its favour the one time it used UDRS leading experts (who ?) to wonder if that is the reason behind their reluctance to use UDRS").
on wiki statements like these are called out for 'weasel words'. it speculates something without proof.

and if it is ever proved that this is the real reason I will be the first person to call dhoni and co stupid. it's about whether or not ICC should dig into its coffers for the betterment of the game.
taking the example you mention, 80-90% of edge/inside edge LBW referrals remain unchanged because "it is not conclusive enough" in the absence of snicko or hotspot. do you see my point ?
don't take me on my word, scan the last ten series with UDRS sans snicko/hotspot, you will have your answer.

[al-Sagar]

the Confusion

Well now that the UDRS is upon us to save the world from bad decisions, how about some common sense? In the 47th over of Bangladesh's innings, umpire Rod Tucker ruled Abdur Razzak out lbw, but the batsman successfully challenged the decision. The confusion starts here, though. The ball had gone for what would have been four leg-byes fine of a square third man, who would have had little chance of fielding it had the on-field umpire not given the batsman out. However, those leg-byes didn't count, but the ball did. And the rule clearly states so too. However, it is a departure from the tennis model, which the UDRS advocates often bring up. In similar situations in tennis, the point is replayed. Those four runs could still go on to become crucial if this is a tight chase.

(from cricinfo)

[senman]

Originally Posted by offstump
the Confusion



(from cricinfo)

One of the failure of UDRS. The other one is why only 2 referalls? and why does the marginal decisions go with umpire calls?

UDRS implemented undercooked.

I still support UDRS though it needs to be improved.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by senman
One of the failure of UDRS. The other one is why only 2 referalls? and why does the marginal decisions go with umpire calls?

UDRS implemented undercooked.

I still support UDRS though it needs to be improved.

Again wrong perception. There are NOT 2 referals. There are 2 UNSUCCESSFUL referals. You can get as many referals as you want as long as you get them right. This is EXTREMELY important for the system to work perfectly. Otherwise teams will go to UDRS for EVERY time an appeal is turned down. That will slow down the game ridiculuously.

[_Rafi_]

NeelHere Vai, didnt India reject UDRS on its non-accuracy ground? They made their presentation to ICC on this ground, not on the ground who should bear the cost.

[Neel Here]

umm, was there any official communication on this ? I don't know. I thought press statements about why BCCI chose not to use UDRS is all we got.